Dear Mr. Bech, Page 1 of 5 Thank you for your email dated 24 September 2006 and recent email received today. The description for the location of the proposal has been changed on our system and now reads Car Park between 9-11 (opposite 8) York Road. I have also changed the description of the Lawful Development Certificate to read: 'Off road parking for motor vehicles ancillary to a commercial use'. The condition from planning application SW/1/61/402: 16118 reads 'the area of land in York Road which it is proposed to use for car parking shall be used for or be available for use for this purpose at all times when the premises at no. 85 Mount Pleasant are in use as a restaurant, and no development, whether permitted by the Town & Country Planning (General Development) Orders, 1950 to 1960 or not, shall be carried out on that area of land which would prevent its use for car parking'. This condition is no longer relevant as 85 Mount Pleasant Road is not currently in use as a restaurant and the statute referred to has been superseded. This application is seeking to determine (based on the evidence provided) whether this area of land has been in continuous use for the last 10 years for commercial parking. If this can be demonstrated then this application will be lawful by default and a planning application will not be required. If it cannot be demonstrated then the applicant may wish to submit a planning application to regulate this. The above is an informal Officer level opinion and does not prejudice any future action or decision taken by the Local Planning Authority. Yours sincerely Antonia James Planning Officer ----Original Message----- From: TelephoneHouse@aol.com [mailto:telephonehouse@aol.com] Sent: 24 September 2006 22:19 To: Antonia James; Paul Cole; Simon Rowberry; Gary Stevenson; Bill McCafferty Cc: Melvyn Howell; Sheila Wheeler; Ruth Chambers; Estelle Grant; Jeff Kempster; Daniel Docker; David Scully; Alan Legg; Brian Hayward; richard.highgate@kent.gov.uk; tom.phillips@kent.gov.uk; matt.goodwin@catlin.com; tpendry@tppr.co.uk; john.cunningham@thecivicsociety.org; gill.twells@thecivicsociety.org; roybee@btinternet.com; Leonardwprice@aol.com; david.wakefield1@tesco.net; aekins@dsl.pipex.com Subject: Urgent/Reply required - TW/06/02750/CEU - Land opposite No.8 York Road RTW Dear Antonia James We received your Notification of an Application TW/06/02750/CEU based on a standardised letter. The Notification is however ERRONEOUS in quoting the site as "Car Park between 9-11 York Road, Tunbridge Wells". There has been previous correspondence (21 March 2006) with Planning Investigations Officer Paul Cole with regard to this. He might not have made you aware of previous correspondence. Please find this document under ITEM 1). We ask you as well to strictly adhere to the application, as filed by Alfren Investments, being for "off road parking for motor vehicles" - not as you quote a "Car Park". Additionally you quote in the proposal "Variation of Condition". - A Variation of Condition would likely need planning consent. So please inform us by return to which Variations and Conditions you are referring. We do not know if you had been copied on the correspondence (6 September 2006) in ITEM 2). Please advise us if you had knowledge of the information contained in this document before sending the Notification of an Application. >>>> To summarise: 1) The land for which the application is made can only be for the land opposite No. 8 York Road. 2) The land opposite No. 8 Y.Rd. had never a planning consent per se. 3) The Valuation officer confirms that this land had not been rated for the exploitation as a commercial car park,
hence Mr Knowlson's arguments regarding commercial use have to be treated as not valid. Page 2 of 5 4) Zai Evans Koder, the solicitor representing the applicant confirms that "from personal oberservation the property has been used for the parking of private motor cars". 5) Long-term residents in York Road, admittedly not being able to follow every deal of the various companies involved under the directorship of Mr Knowlson, say that the small piece of land was not used as a commercial car park in the past. 6) Requested Variation of Condition to 85 Mt Pleasant Road must be laid open and explained in a full planning application. 7) We suggest that a Certificate of Lawful Use for a car park cannot be issued as Highway Code and the Local Plan / Community Plan would not allow to declare the usage 'Lawful'. 8) Gary Stevenson, who in view of the complexity of the case, offered to gather information from various colleagues and produce a collective answer wrote: "From a planning point of view we had previously intervened and a retrospective planning application has been invited". In our opinion a planning application cannot be substituted by a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use, and we suggest that the applicant needs to file a proper planning application to regularise the situation. 9) Please take the following previous correspondences ITEM 1) and ITEM 2) into consideration. Daniel Bech Telephone House Neighbours Association ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ITEM 1) >>>>>>>> Subject: RE: Land opposite No 8 York Road, TN1 1JY Date: 22/03/2006 14:39:42 GMT Standard Time From: Paul.Cole@Tunbridgewells.gov.uk Reply To: To: TelephoneHouse@aol.com Thank you for the email below. I have been in contact with Mr Knowlson and will be communicating with his Solicitor, with respect to the usage of the piece of land in question. In the meantime the advertising sign will be removed by the agents. I hope this helps for now Paul Cole Planning Investigations Officer -----Original Message----- From: TelephoneHouse@aol.com [mailto:telephonehouse@aol.com] Sent: 21 March 2006 12:50 To: Paul Cole; Leonardwprice@aol.com; Gwenda Bradley; Ruth Chambers Cc: PAGESTELLA@aol.com; Chatp004@aol.com; maria.lambert@met.police.uk; improvertw@townforum.org.uk Subject: Land opposite No 8 York Road, TN1 1JY Dear Mr Cole,
Page 3 of 5 We discussed 2 issues this morning regarding Land opposite No 8 York Road: 1) out of character real estate sign in the Conservation Area 2) possible planning application required to use the land as carpark Point 1 is something which I suppose could be dealt by your department swiftly by asking the agent (Brackett 533 733 - Mr Smith) to remove it. Point 2 - There has never been an application to use the land as a carpark. It is my understanding that it was used from time to time by their owners to park on it while being in town. TWBC Public Access has an erroneous record for land between 9-11 York Road, being the entire site from 9 to Trinity House (No 11) - opposite the terrace 6-14 York Road. http://secure.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/publicaccess/propdb/property/property_detailview.aspx? module=p1&keyval=0016dhbwli000&propno=010008669002 However the ownership is divided into 4: Land opposite No 6 (being part now of No 9 YR) / No 8 / No 10 / and Nos 12-14. Further the land opposite No 10 York Road, falling into the curtilage of the Listed Building 10 YR is definded as a garden with a garage-workshop, Planning application SW/1/58/215. There is a planning consent for a carpark of 8 cars only for the land opposite 12-14 - Planning application and LBC: 84/01112/FUL Planning Application Car park for 8 cars 84/01113/LBC Planning Application Listed Building Consent - Demolition of Garages http://secure.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/publicaccess/propdb/property/property_history_summary.aspx? module=p1&lpikeyval=0016dhbwli000&blpukeyval=0014ydbwbu000 Please let us know what actions you intend to take. Katharina Mahler-Bech for The Telephonehouse Neighbours Association www.telephonehouse.org.uk ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM 2) >>>>>>>
From: TelephoneHouse@aol.com [mailto:telephonehouse@aol.com] Sent: 06 September 2006 12:54 Page 4 of 5 To: Melvyn Howell; Sheila Wheeler; Paul Cole; Ruth Chambers; Gary Stevenson; Jeff Kempster; Daniel Docker; David Scully; Estelle Grant; Alan Legg; Brian Hayward; richard.highgate@kent.gov.uk; tom.phillips@kent.gov.uk Cc: matt.goodwin@catlin.com; tpendry@tppr.co.uk; john.cunningham@thecivicsociety.org; gill.twells@thecivicsociety.org; roybee@btinternet.com; Leonardwprice@aol.com; david.wakefield1@tesco.net; aekins@dsl.pipex.com; maria.lambert@met.police.uk; Chatp004@aol.com; PAGESTELLA@aol.com; Pfbrawlins@aol.com; Lawgv7@aol.com; call@telephonehouse.org.uk; mary.harris@courier.co.uk Subject: 6(!) cars on a small plot opposite No. 8 York Road - Damage to Local Community Dear Melvyn, Two weeks have passed now since TW-flats Ltd, Estate Agents, Monson Road uses the land opposite No 8 York Road as commercial car park, for up to 6 cars. There has been intimidation to residents and an 'assault' on a boundary hedge of an adjacent maintained garden. The small strip of land between 15-17 feet width, stretching in length to around 50-55 ft lies in a residential area in the Conservation Area and is surrounded by Listed Buildings. The movement of cars on the site is very frequent, as the employees of TW-Flat use it as base to drive to site visits or to chauffeur clients. They often reverse, recklessly over a footpath into oncoming traffic flow. Even driving out facing the road would not diminish the hazard caused to pedestrians and motorists, as there is no vision splay at all. It has been suggested that a car park is established. We checked related planning documents for the site and found a planning application dated 24.9.1961 which is linked to a restaurant in 85 Mt Pleasant Road. This application received permission SW/1/61/402 "The area of land in York Road which it is proposed to use for car parking shall be used for or be available for use for this purpose at all times when the premises at No. 85 Mount Pleasant are in use as restaurant, and no development whether permitted by the Town & Planning (General Development) Orders, 1950 to 1960 or not, shall be carried out on that area of land which would prevent its use for car parking. The alterations at 85 Mt Pleasant were concluded 31/5/1965. No evidence was found that the land opposite was used as a commercial car park in connection with this planning. Surely causing such chaos nowadays in a residential area cannot be based on a slobby planning consent from 1961 in which not even the number of allowed parking spaces formed part of the application. Further, the car parking on the land opposite No 8 York Road was merely a part of a condition for the extension of a restaurant on 85 Mt Pleasant Road. The restaurant has long ago ceased to exist and the place at 85 Mt Pleasant is now an office (at the moment occupied by Estate agents Knight Frank). A planning application in 1976 (TW/76/0255) to change the use of No 7 York Road into an office with the provision of car parking at opposite 8 York Road was refused. This decision was confirmed at appeal. 1) The proposal would be contrary to the provisions of the approved Royal Tunbridge Wells and Southborough Town Map and would lead to an undesirable growth of office floor space in this part of Tunbridge Wells. 2) The proposal would involve the loss of residential accommodation. 3) The car parking provision is not adequate. The site itself was never subject to a planning application in its own right. There is no planning consent to use the land opposite 8 York as a car park independently. Further there is no evidence that the land was actually ever used commercially, and long-term residents confirm that it was used privately. In our opinion when the ownership of 85 Mt Pleasant, 7 York Road and land opposite 8 York Road was
split and the different premises were not used to comply with the whole planning consent for the restaurant at 85 Mt Pleasant anymore, the car parking opposite 8 York Road would have needed to get its own planning consent to justify its continuous usage. Surely you would have expected that the authorities had stated how many cars could be allowed to park. They would have certainly taken into consideration vision splay, traffic and overall pedestrian movement? Certainly consideration would have been given to take into account the enjoyment and use of neighbouring gardens including Trinity Grounds? We understand from Paul Cole, plannings investigation officer, that there seems to be an application for a certificate of lawful existing use. Neighbours deny that such a use has been carried out over a ten year period. The site was in the opinion of adjacent freeholders used only for personal use. A search of the Valuation Office Agency returned that the premises are not rated for business. Was any tax paid to the Council from 1961 on? The landregistry shows that the site has been sold by the previous owner in January 2004, Depden Investement (liquidated), director Adam Knowlson to another company Alfern Investment Limited, c/o 5 Haldock Road, Wadhurst. The director of this company is again Adam Knowlson. An incredibly low price of 10,000 is stated in the proprietorship register. We have reported to TWBC (Daniel Docker / Jeff Kempster) that the land is infested with Japanese Knotweed. The Listed wall of the former Trinity Church Yard is affected. Could you please advise us on the Council s position on the land opposite 8 York Road relating to: 1) Planning and its Enforcement 2) Environmental Issues (knotweed) plus impact on Streetscape / Streetscene 3) Safety matters concerning Highways especially pedestrian movements 4) Business Rates 5) the Conservation Area and Listed Buildings 6) Improvement policies for the town and TWBC's Environment Strategy 7) the Community Plan and LDF referring to a document submitted by THNA www.telephonehouse.org.uk/openspace/communityplan_thna210606.pdf We attach some pictures of the site as seen over the last days. < carparking060906.pdf > Page 5 of 5 Daniel Bech Telephone House Neighbours Association www.telephonehouse.org.uk